uptower
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2018
- Messages
- 19,852
- Reaction score
- 16,834
- Location
- Behind you - run!
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Trump's lawyers filed a shaky case? What a surprise...
It think it is preferable to criticize his actions, but a line is crossed when we make it about him. Remember. When Trump goes away, his following will still be there. Getting rid of Trump only takes out the current leader of that anti-government sentiment. The cult will still exist, and simply search for a new voice to tell them what they want to hear.Like the originator.
Fascism.It think it is preferable to criticize his actions, but a line is crossed when we make it about him. Remember. When Trump goes away, his following will still be there. Getting rid of Trump only takes out the current leader of that anti-government sentiment. The cult will still exist, and simply search for a new voice to tell them what they want to hear.
It would be better to make it about values. What defines the MAGA cult?
Fascism.
Seriously, if you look at what "fascism" is and does, and you look at what MAGA folks project, they are indistinguishable. Fear of "others", destruction of "the system", racism, unquestioned loyalty, jingoism, autocratic processes. It's all there. "Many experts agree that fascism is a mass political movement that emphasizes extreme nationalism, militarism, and the supremacy of both the nation and the single, powerful leader over the individual citizen." What Is Fascism? (Council on Foreign Relations) "In many ways, fascist regimes are revolutionary because they advocate the overthrow of existing systems of government and the persecution of political enemies. However, when it advances their interests, such regimes can also be highly conservative in their championing of traditional values related to the role of women, social hierarchy, and obedience to authority. And although fascist leaders typically claim to support the everyman, in reality their regimes often align with powerful business interests."
I may agree in principle, but that is not how the world works. I have a whole thread on that in the Loft.That is all true. And what is equally true is that fascists never admit they are fascists. So calling them that does not cause them to stop or rethink what they are doing.
We have to keep it impersonal and argue for the truth. They think the mainstream news is fake. That's a good place to start. We can't have much understanding between left and right if each side doesn't believe the same facts. Boil it down to basics.
They say the election was stolen. But they can't prove it. Well, that seems like a no brainer. They should be reminded that it is not reasonable to claim things which are not supported in fact. All Americans should agree that Joe Biden is the president. No proof? No reasonable argument otherwise.
If they make an unreasonable argument simply say so. If they go personal don't engage on that level. Call out the act of going personal as changing the subject. Or simply cut it off if it's too annoying. It is designed to be annoying; and frequently used by those who are losing the argument just to blow up the argument. No different than 'accidentally' overturning the game board when losing the game. If they try to change the subject call that out and bring it right back. If they try to claim a bunch of evidence, point out that it is insufficient evidence, or it was already considered and rejected in a court of law, and that the time of legally challenging the election has expired. The election stands and the facts support it. Beliefs otherwise are without basis.
When you have the facts on your side, using them is a winning argument. Allowing the conversation to go elsewhere only detracts from the facts.
The truth is the argument.
...We have to keep it impersonal and argue for the truth...
PHOENIX (CN) — A federal judge in Arizona dismissed a suit Friday seeking to ban electronic voting machines ahead of the November midterm election, brought by Republican candidates who claim the machines may have security flaws.
In the suit, Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake and secretary of state candidate Mark Finchem claimed an injunction to stop the use of voting machines was necessary since the "voting system does not reliably provide trustworthy and verifiable election results." Former President Donald Trump — a frequent purveyor of baseless election fraud claims — has endorsed Lake and Finchem in their respective races.
Lake and Finchem claimed that voting on paper ballots and hand-counting those votes was the only efficient and secure method for proceeding in November.
It is definitely headed more towards that than away, but no done deal. We need to insist on respectful dialog, avoid being judgmental, and simply call out wrongdoing and falsehoods wherever they threaten our democracy.Problem is, both sides won't, possibly can't, do that. Sadly, at this point, I think the result will be secession and/or civil war.
Frivolous litigation is a tactic he uses to deflect awareness of his prevarications.Judge rejects Trump lawsuit vs. Clinton, others as 'hyperbole'
A U.S. judge has dismissed Donald Trump's lawsuit against his 2016 rival Hillary Clinton, saying the former Republican president's allegations that Democrats tried to rig that election by linking his campaign to Russia was an attempt to "flaunt" political grievances that did not belong in court.www.reuters.com
--
Mr. Trump appears to be keeping his losing record intact, since his 2020 election law suits.
Can you back up your argument? Can you explain in 500 words or less, how Texas had the right to sue Pennsylvania over Pennsylvania's election laws?i bet you cant even back that up with a legal argument
Actually, California might have a case, since many of the illegal guns going into California are coming from Texas.Can you back up your argument? Can you explain in 500 words or less, how Texas had the right to sue Pennsylvania over Pennsylvania's election laws?
What harm was caused to Texas? One must be able to show harm to have standing in a court of law. If you ram your car into my house, I have grounds to sue you.
If you ram your car into my neighbors house, I have no grounds to sue you. What if California sued Texas over it's lax gun laws?
I can briefly explain the "no standing by Texas" decision. Texas could not show that it suffered any injury by Pennsylvania because the Pennsylvania law and its implementation only affected Pennsylvania citizens, not Texans. Therefore, Texas had no standing (legal reason) to complain.A bizarre lie. The judge did not rule that nobody had standing. Just that Texas did not.
The remedy is for a Pennsylvanian who has legitimate proof of harm to bring an action. Easy peasy.good point on the 10th, (have to think about that one) but (ex) when I am voting for a candidate and another voter casts an illegal vote for the same - I am harmed (my vote effectively cancelled) -the basis for the harm claim..Tx is harmed if PA allows improper votes to be cast since electors from both states are casting votes
It's all moot. I did see the PA Supreme Court directly ruled against their own state Constituion requirements
A lower appellate court earlier this year ruled in favor of the GOP officials, saying that permitting no-excuse mail voting through a statutory change violated the state constitution and court precedent dating back to the 1920s.
But in Tuesday’s majority opinion for the state Supreme Court, Justice Christine Donohue wrote that the Pennsylvania General Assembly “is endowed with great legislative power, subject only to express restrictions in the Constitution.”
Pa. Supreme Court upholds no-excuse mail voting ahead of midterms | Spotlight PA
A lower appellate court earlier this year sided with Republican lawmakers, saying that permitting no-excuse mail voting required amending the state constitution.www.spotlightpa.org
Somewhere there needs to be a remedy, but we aren't going to get it as SCOTUS is blowing off original jurisdication under standing..Im no fan of Trumps continual inability to accept the results, b ut if thre is no remedy people do crazy shit like 1/6
I don't think that those arguing that there is some chimeric "standing" for Texas understand either the 10th Amendment, or standing. It's all about wanting to get their preferred results.The remedy is for a Pennsylvanian who has legitimate proof of harm to bring an action. Easy peasy.
Boo hoo...
She just oozes sleaze, doesn't she? But, she's digging Trump such a hole! She should keep it up.Something about this woman makes me disbelieve her...intensely!
She just oozes sleaze, doesn't she? But, she's digging Trump such a hole! She should keep it up.
Fascism.
Seriously, if you look at what "fascism" is and does, and you look at what MAGA folks project, they are indistinguishable. Fear of "others", destruction of "the system", racism, unquestioned loyalty, jingoism, autocratic processes. It's all there. "Many experts agree that fascism is a mass political movement that emphasizes extreme nationalism, militarism, and the supremacy of both the nation and the single, powerful leader over the individual citizen." What Is Fascism? (Council on Foreign Relations) "In many ways, fascist regimes are revolutionary because they advocate the overthrow of existing systems of government and the persecution of political enemies. However, when it advances their interests, such regimes can also be highly conservative in their championing of traditional values related to the role of women, social hierarchy, and obedience to authority. And although fascist leaders typically claim to support the everyman, in reality their regimes often align with powerful business interests."
How could Texas have standing in a Pennsylvania run election? The judge threw it out because it was bogus.after SCOTUS refused to hear Tx vs. PA (over standing) - i gave up on the courts
Apparently not even passing acquaintances.As a lawyer she shows great, mongoloid, knuckle dragging stupidity. Never raise 'truth' at all. The mere fact she needs to keep on saying it demonstrates that she is not exactly roommates with the truth
Did the judge actually laugh, like in court?Not just lost. Laughed at by the judge:
"Plaintiff’s theory of this case, set forth over 527 paragraphs in the first 118 pages of the Amended Complaint, is difficult to summarize in a concise and cohesive manner. It was certainly not presented that way."
[...]
As [the defendants] view it, “[w]hatever the utilities of [the Amended Complaint] as a fundraising tool, a press release, or a list of political grievances, it has no merit as a lawsuit.” (Id.). I agree.
[...]
First, the pleading itself. A complaint filed in federal court must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct. Each claim must be stated in numbered paragraphs, and each numbered paragraph limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is 193 pages in length, with 819 numbered paragraphs. It contains 14 counts, names 31 defendants, 10 “John Does” described as fictitious and unknown persons, and 10 “ABC Corporations” identified as fictitious and unknown entities. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is neither short nor plain, and it certainly does not establish that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief.
[...]
More troubling, the claims presented in the Amended Complaint are not warranted under existing law. In fact, they are foreclosed by existing precedent, including decisions of the Supreme Court. To illustrate, I highlight here just two glaring problems with the Amended Complaint. There are many others. But these are emblematic of the audacity of Plaintiff’s legal theories and the manner in which they clearly contravene binding case law.
[...]
Many of the Amended Complaint’s characterizations of events are implausible because they lack any specific allegations which might provide factual support for the conclusions reached. For instance, the contention that former FBI director James Comey, senior FBI officials, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein “overzealously targeted” Plaintiff and conspired to harm him through appointment of special counsel are strikingly similar to the conclusory and formulaic allegations found deficient in the seminal Supreme Court case of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). What the Amended Complaint lacks in substance and legal support it seeks to substitute with length, hyperbole, and the settling of scores and grievances.